Chuck Norris Trophy
Registered User
- Jan 22, 2015
- 2,877
- 3,039
Which team would be the best in a league with no cap
- Thread starter Chuck Norris Trophy
- Start date
-
ALL Pickem Pools are now open - NFL Survivor, NFL Pickem AND NHL Survivor Click here for info and to join a pool
Rangers would benefit far most. Of course, it would mean nothing, if managment would be totally Pejorative Slured, like it was last time when we had no cap, but if managment would be half compenent, they would compete for the cup every single year.
Habs and Leafs fans might be inintially happy, that now they gonna simply buy all the top talent, but less happy when they see how much they'd have to overpay for players to come and play in hostile, high-pressure enviroment with crappy weather and high taxes,
Habs and Leafs fans might be inintially happy, that now they gonna simply buy all the top talent, but less happy when they see how much they'd have to overpay for players to come and play in hostile, high-pressure enviroment with crappy weather and high taxes,
The Gr8 Dane
L'harceleur
These teams were ass when there was no salary cap what are we even talking about
CanadienShark
Registered User
- Dec 18, 2012
- 39,367
- 13,716
If you hadn't said English is your first language, I don't think anyone would have thought otherwise.
My vote goes to Rangers as of today.
My vote goes to Rangers as of today.
This. There’s one Cup between both since 1967.
You can’t just add great players and expect championships, as was proven pre-cap.
Last edited:
Teams that grew their own prospects, though the draft, were still the best teams. Growing up as a leaf fan, they bought guys like brian Leech, alex moginly, eric lindros, etc. Well, those guys were past their prime looking for big contracts to end their careers. Still need the good young guys. Still need to build and go through the process. Leafs couldn't buy themselves a cup before the salary cup era, so i don't know why you think they'd be a top team. Good management means a lot more than people realise.
Based on history it would be New Jersey and Detroit. It's still about management, coaching, scouting and developing players at the end of the day. Bigger markets should have advantages though.
HisNoodliness
Good things come to those who wait
Honestly I think we'd be watching Tampa and Colorado competing in their fifth finals in a row this year. Those teams were the most talented of recent memory and both had their ability to bring back a deep team significantly hindered by the cap, Tampa especially.
Good drafting and development win the day and that's even more true without a cap, not less. The same way that drafting and developing Lidstrom, Fedorov, Konstantinov, etc set up the Red Wings of the late 90s to win in the pre-cap era, we'd see the same with Tampa and Kucherov, Point etc. Imagine Marchessault, Coleman, Goodrow, Gourde all still on that team. Imagine if they could have kept Sergavhev and Stamkos but still added Guentzel anyway this off-season. Imagine if they hadn't been dumping all of their picks for mediocre players on good contracts just so they can fit under the cap.
The Blackhawks would have been unstoppable around Kane and Toews' prime years had they been able to keep Buff, Saad, Panarin, etc. Players want to win and winning teams make enough money to justify paying those players. Even without a cap, owners are too greedy to let the salaries get too outrageous and so the competetive advantage of wealthy teams is much smaller than the advantage of good ones keeping their players.
The Rangers would manage to buy a cup every once in a while but it would be mostly vets and they'd fail to have sustainability with that model. Besides that, it would just be 2 or 3 dominant teams at any one time depending on who had the luck of the draft 5-10 years years prior. Dynasties in major markets would have a little better staying power I'd imagine, but either way it's mostly an aging core that would end a window regardless.
Good drafting and development win the day and that's even more true without a cap, not less. The same way that drafting and developing Lidstrom, Fedorov, Konstantinov, etc set up the Red Wings of the late 90s to win in the pre-cap era, we'd see the same with Tampa and Kucherov, Point etc. Imagine Marchessault, Coleman, Goodrow, Gourde all still on that team. Imagine if they could have kept Sergavhev and Stamkos but still added Guentzel anyway this off-season. Imagine if they hadn't been dumping all of their picks for mediocre players on good contracts just so they can fit under the cap.
The Blackhawks would have been unstoppable around Kane and Toews' prime years had they been able to keep Buff, Saad, Panarin, etc. Players want to win and winning teams make enough money to justify paying those players. Even without a cap, owners are too greedy to let the salaries get too outrageous and so the competetive advantage of wealthy teams is much smaller than the advantage of good ones keeping their players.
The Rangers would manage to buy a cup every once in a while but it would be mostly vets and they'd fail to have sustainability with that model. Besides that, it would just be 2 or 3 dominant teams at any one time depending on who had the luck of the draft 5-10 years years prior. Dynasties in major markets would have a little better staying power I'd imagine, but either way it's mostly an aging core that would end a window regardless.
ACC1224
Super Elite, Passing ALL Tests since 2002
- Aug 19, 2002
- 75,454
- 41,431
Mogilny and Leetch were excellent for the Leafs, even Lindros wasn’t that bad. Not sure how you see any of those players hurting the team.
WTFMAN99
Registered User
- Jun 17, 2009
- 33,800
- 11,921
I think it's still best to have a "team" and I will try to rationalize it a bit more.
The NYR did have an insane budget before but when you have a bunch of stars...who is going to do the grunt work? Forecheck? Penalty kill? block shots etc? You still need guys that can perform their role extremely well.
The Leafs in the pre-cap era I felt struggled with a couple of things, their defense just wasn't good enough, probably at least 2 top 4 defenseman short and probably needed another 2 wingers, 1 being a top line guy and another legit top 6.
Centre was a bit thin - Joe Niewendyk was good but older...
I'd love to go back to zero cap or at least have a luxury tax, Texas/Florida/Vegas can spend less because of the net pay situation versus Toronto having to pay a premium because of taxes is frustrating.
None of them hurt the leafs. All were past their primes. If you actually read what i said, I'm simply saying that the leafs couldn't buy themselves a cup.. which is true, so im not sure what youre arguing with me about.
WTFMAN99
Registered User
- Jun 17, 2009
- 33,800
- 11,921
I wonder now with UFA starting sooner with the years of service how the whole experiment would work.
Agree, but I'm not sure I agree fully with the bolded. Right before the cap happened, the Wings had a payroll of 78m and the league average was 44m. Teams that both drafted really well AND had owners who were willing to go above and beyond to keep the depth players and add even more in UFA were at a significant advantage. Yeah, just having Rangers cash without the drafting ain't getting you anywhere. But, you ain't bringing in Hasek, Hull, Robitaille and keeping all your middle six guys you drafted if your owner ain't going all in either.
TheDawnOfANewTage
Dahlin, it’ll all be fine
- Dec 17, 2018
- 12,750
- 18,721
Yep, I feel like Vegas would spend whatever to win. Would actually be kinda interesting.
BigBadBruins7708
Registered User
Considering they combined for 1 Cup over 40 years in the post expansion - pre lockout NHL, definitely not Toronto or NY.
Even in the no cap days it was teams that drafted and developed that won. Detroit, NJ, Montreal, Edmonton, Pittsburgh, Colorado The no cap simply let them keep the team together.
Looking at the current league that would translate to Tampa, Vegas, Colorado. They'd be competing each year and wouldn't have had to lose the players they did
Even in the no cap days it was teams that drafted and developed that won. Detroit, NJ, Montreal, Edmonton, Pittsburgh, Colorado The no cap simply let them keep the team together.
Looking at the current league that would translate to Tampa, Vegas, Colorado. They'd be competing each year and wouldn't have had to lose the players they did
Hobnobs
Pinko
- Nov 29, 2011
- 9,095
- 2,434
I'm no Leafs fan but saying that a team that went to the conference finals twice between 99 and 2004 is ass is quite daft.
It's true that Habs and Rags were ass but then again in Habs case they were one of the budget teams. Finances aren't bad now, right?
- Oct 30, 2006
- 2,813
- 1,773
The Habs. Maybe the Rangers.
As was mentioned, the Leafs had zero success in the no cap era and the Rangers had minimal success. The Leafs continue to be too soft, weak, fragile and heartless to be a Stanley Cup contender and the Rangers aren't settled in as 'Cup contenders yet...although they're miles ahead of the Leafs.
The Habs, on the other hand, are a true character team. Success is the offspring of character.
As was mentioned, the Leafs had zero success in the no cap era and the Rangers had minimal success. The Leafs continue to be too soft, weak, fragile and heartless to be a Stanley Cup contender and the Rangers aren't settled in as 'Cup contenders yet...although they're miles ahead of the Leafs.
The Habs, on the other hand, are a true character team. Success is the offspring of character.
Hobnobs
Pinko
- Nov 29, 2011
- 9,095
- 2,434
Sure but those teams (+ dallas and Avs) complemeted the core with purchasing power or even adding core pieces with purchasing power.
- Oct 30, 2006
- 2,813
- 1,773
Since 2004 the Habs have been in three conference finals and one SC final. The Rangers...5 conference finals and one SC final.
Hobnobs
Pinko
- Nov 29, 2011
- 9,095
- 2,434
Yes and that's during the cap years. Maybe read what I'm responding to.
Dr Quincy
Registered User
- Jun 19, 2005
- 29,081
- 11,234
Sure look at all the Cups the Rangers won in the 70s, 80s and 90s when there was no cap.
The obvious answer to me would be Vegas. Their ownership is not only single-mindedly focused on the Cup, they don't seem to have issues going deep into payroll expenditures even WITH the cap. Doing away with the cap? Just sanctioning more payroll.
FissionFire
Registered User
History tells us Detroit, New Jersey, and Colorado would likely still be top teams with no cap. Tampa and Vegas would be as well. I doubt Toronto or NY would be any different than the high-spending failures they were back then. Leafs certainly never would have tanked to the point of being able to draft Matthews.
Most teams today wouldn’t have nearly the success without a cap. Star players would end up in big markets because they could get paid significantly more. Teams like Florida would become feeders for the big dogs just like they were before the cap. Trade deadline would be far more entertaining though that’s for sure.
Most teams today wouldn’t have nearly the success without a cap. Star players would end up in big markets because they could get paid significantly more. Teams like Florida would become feeders for the big dogs just like they were before the cap. Trade deadline would be far more entertaining though that’s for sure.
